Example of Translating Into Propertarianism

You know, normally I wouldn’t respond, but you’re a moral person and you’re trying, so I’m going to restate what you say scientifically. Watch what happens.

—“The first truth that needs to be asserted is that nature is a product of an action, not an action in and of itself. The second truth, is that nature has a tendency to move from order to chaos, not chaos to order.”—

Translates to:

Man creates his personal, intellectual, social, political and economic method of cooperation, which we observe in the form of patterns of behavior, reproduction, norms, production, laws, institutions by the cumulative influence of his actions. We will call set of patterns this that produce cooperation a ‘social order’. Social orders have a tendency to evolve through experimentation, rent-seeking, and shocks until the patterns fail to assist in cooperation, and instead hinder cooperation, resulting in desires and therefore demand for restructuring these patterns of behavior using different principles, technologies, and institutions of cooperation.

You are mixing religious, moral, and semi-scientific terminology and phrasing. Thankfully I”m able to disassemble it.

—“We can make the same conclusions regarding morality and ethics.”—

Those institutions of cooperation that we name “ethics” for interpersonal actions, and “morality” for the external consequences of our actions, also follow the same pattern of evolution until they no longer assist in cooperation, but hinder cooperation.

—“Modern science has affirmed the counter,”—

(I am afraid I cannot translate this except as ‘modern science has asserted otherwise’?)

—“[science] has lead to fallacious conclusions about nearly every other subject that it touches.”—

Unfortunately, due to the introduction of pseudoscience in the social sciences by Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Keynes, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand and Rothbard, as well as all the european and american postmodernists including feminists, and its subsequent adoption in the media, in advertising, in academy, and in the state bureaucracy, and in the primary and secondary school system, and in the collective bargaining groups, pseudoscientific conclusions spread through propaganda have indoctrinated large portions of the electorate, particularly women and the lower classes, into this false pseudoscientific set of ethical and moral conclusions.

—“Our core philosophical assumptions shape the way we view the world.”—

The value judgements that we use to decide between and act upon a multitude of possible actions are constructed from instinctual bias, experience with others, observation, norms, traditions, rituals, myths, legends, education, and formal institutions.

—“I believe these first two truths to be instinctually known rather than empirically proven.”—

I testify that these statements can be known by intuition and experience, not by pseudoscientific argumentation. In matters of social science, we can only determine what works successfully or unsuccessfully, we cannot know that any hypothesis will be successful or unsuccessful by ratio-scientific analysis.

(Note: one does not ‘prove’ anything empirically. One only eliminates alternative hypothesis and imaginary and biased, and false content from one’s statements and theories. When one constructs a proof in logic or mathematics or operationalism, one states only that this construction is possible, not that it is true. It is only true that one may claim it is possible. )

–“It then becomes a matter of intellectual honesty by affirming what we already know to be true.’—

(Note: This is total nonsense, sorry. Just because pseudoscience cannot tell us what is true, and just because science can only tell us in the social sciences what is false, that does not mean our intuitions tell us what is true, because we cannot easily separate immoral and unethical norms traditions and teachings from moral and ethical norms and teachings. Otherwise people world wide would intuit ethical and moral action differently. While it is true that our senses tell us what is ethical – we evolved them over time – they can almost never tell us what is moral, and rarely tell us of externalities. Or it would have been possible to develop social science to defeat social pseudoscience before the 21st century.)

The rest of the post continues to elaborate on this fallacy, so there is nothing else to comment upon.

Science has told us what constitutes ethics and morality. Science has told us what our intutions failed to. All of ethics and morality is composed of an accounting of cooperative assistance and cooperative costs, and that is all it is. All else is just ritualistic language.


Natural Rights As

Natural “rights” are those legal rights of appeal for defense or restitution with which productive men must warranty they insure one another in order to resist the natural ‘wrongs’ that man demonstrates when unproductive.

Rights are those actions we insure one another against by collective action when they are violated. But the means of violation is always the same: the imposition of costs upon others, rather than engaging in productive activities.

This lack of including the requirement for productivity, which was obvious to men of property, was an obvious requirement of nature, and therefore a natural law not needing insurance, but one insured by nature herself. An unproductive man in the company of productive men need not be judged by men unless he imposes a cost upon them. His failure of productivity is a judgement passed against him by nature.

Women circumvented this principle and with it destroyed aristocratic, egalitarian, western civilization.

The Russians and Chinese bought the Great Lie of Communism. Americans bought the Great Lie of Neo Puritanism. These were the great lies.

The answer was very simple: just keep on with what we were doing and create new houses for women and the working classes, and preserve our ancient monarchies, and our ancient rule of law.

Napoleon was the first catastrophe. He started the ball rolling. He was the first plunderer of Europe since the Muslims Sacked Rome. And he broke our relative peace.


Libertarians Cannot Gain The Presidency


Libertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better.

At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family.


I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls.

If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party.

The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it.

Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.

—“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could.

The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close.

A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


It’s Not A Fallacy, It’s A Deceit

(First Draft)

Working through Rallying and Shaming (which are threats of non-cooperation), through the techniques used against the west, if not against all humans.

I come up with this hierarchy as a first draft.

1) Gossiping, Shaming, Rallying (Threatening with non-cooperation)
2) Loading, Framing, Overloading (Saturation)
3) Distraction, Half-Truth/Suggestion, Big Lie (Substitution overloading)
4) Magic, Monotheism, Pseudoscience (loaded and framed big lie)
5) Interpersonal, Square/Pulpit/Podium, Media (overloaded big lie)
6) State, Academy and School, Entertainment and Media

All of which are attacks on the subconscious to force the application of pathological altruism, rather than reason and skepticism.


Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

Retaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it.

Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information.

But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules.

The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs.

(Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)


Intelligence and Rule-Breaking Deception

Smart kids lie 100% of the time?

Q: More intelligent children tend to be more deceptive—can you explain this?
A: The experiment was simplicity itself. A child is asked to sit facing away from a box. The experimenter puts something in the box and says “Do not peek, do not peek” and then leaves the room. Most children peek. The experimenter returns and asks, “Did you peek?” Most children lie—but they do so the more frequently the brighter they are, as judged by a simple cognitive test. If your child is especially bright, he or she lies 100 percent of the time, slow 65 percent of the time. The same thing is true for health at birth. The healthier you are the more apt you are to lie 4 years later.

—I wonder if fear of reprisal factors into that experiment?—

Curt Doolittle

I actually think it’s **awareness of harm**. The child does not obey rules so much as the single rule of doing no harm.

The dumber the child the less certain he is that he does no harm. The smarter the more certain he is that he does no harm.

This matches the 5 or 6 personality type measures that most of the field relies upon: what we call many things but what I learned as ‘blame avoidance’ or ‘fear of harm’ or ‘fear of retaliation’.

I have been criticized my entire life, from childhood to the present for having no respect for rules. I’ve said, I think since I was 13? that “rules are for people who need them”.

we only need one rule: do no harm. Or more correctly: impose no cost upon property en toto of others. Or epistemologically stated: impose no cost except upon that proerty-en-toto which you know to be yours.


Dear Fellow Intellectuals – Especially in Academia. Learn The Language of Economics.

The language of social science is now and will forever be, economics, just as the language of ratios is and will be mathematics. But when we say economics, we mean not monetary economics, but the terminology of costs, discounts and premiums. The effect of asymmetry of information. The language of equilibria.

Acquisition, Inventory, Property-en-toto (demonstrated property)
Incentive and retaliation
Voluntary and moral exchange, involuntary and immoral takings.
Cooperation, Boycott, and War.
Acquisitions, Costs, and Full Accounting
Opportunity costs, Transaction Costs
Information and Asymmetry
Portfolios and Equilibria
Production and Reproduction, Genetic Pacification and Evolution
The Intertemporal Division of reproductive Perception, Cognition, Labor, and Advocacy


Hierarchy Of Ethical Logics

(worth repeating)


1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..........Stories
2) Virtue Ethics.......(young)...............Biographies
3) Rule Ethics.........(inexperience adult)..Laws
4) Outcome Ethics......(experienced adult)...Science


Lying: Methods and Techniques .. Plus A Reading List

(important) (first draft) (this ought to make some people think)

What I am struck by when researching this topic, is how primitive the research is into HOW lies are constructed. Here are the Axis I am working with:

So sticking with the general rules that:

    1) All language consists of negotiation on behalf of our reproductive strategies
    2) Transfer of meaning requires empathy and suggestion (guidance)
    3) Categories, Properties and Relations are transferred between people by analogies which we recursively test.
    4) Names of identities consisting of operations constitute the least divergent analogies for the purpose of transferring categories, properties and relations and establishing meaning.

6) One can speak to:

    a) speak directly to an individual or audience (as targets)
    c) speak indirectly through individuals or audiences (as agents)
    d) speak indirectly through media (as distributors)
    e) speak indirectly through environmental ‘evidence and markers’ (as inferrers – this is the most interesting)

5) One can convey :

    a) speak as complete a set of information as possible to establish meaning sufficient to deny all possible alternative interpretations.
    b) speak a sufficient set of information for the audience to construct the meaning, but insufficient to eliminate the possibilities.
    c) speak an incomplete set of information hoping the audience will substitute the correct or incorrect information.
    d) speak an alternative set of information sufficient to mislead the audience, but not necessarily determine falsehood of one’s statements.
    e) speak an alternative set of information sufficient to mislead the audience but sufficient to determine the falsehood of you statements.
    f) not speak at all.

7) One can speak using:

    a) names of operations (truth)
    b) analogies (meaning)
    c) experiences (suggestion of how information should be interpreted)
    d) loadings (influencing information)
    f) framings (eliminating information)
    g) obscurantisms (hiding information)
    h) overloadings (saturating the environment with information)
    i) outright lies and ‘big lies’.

8) One can speak with:

    a) Truthfulness
    b) Honesty
    c) Error
    d) General Cognitive Bias
    e) Reproductive Cognitive Bias
    f) Wishful Thinking
    g) Deception

9) One can construct speech out of:

    a) a simple statement (information)
    b) a simple narrative (experience)
    c) a complex narrative (cause and effect)
    d) a distributed fragmentary narrative (multiple narratives with corresponding and reinforcing value judgements).

10) One can engage in discovery by:

    a) conversation (free association)
    b) discourse (investigation)
    c) argument (criticism by reason)
    d) debate (persona, audience/jury, court/jury, senate/jury)
    e) publication and collective criticism (science)

10a) one can engage rallying by:

    a) gossip (positive or negative)
    b) shaming(negative) or praising(positive)
    c) rallying (positive or negative)
    e) Propagandizing (positive or negative)
    d) Critique(negative) or Heaping Undue Praise(positive)
    f) Ideology (positive or negative)

11) One can employ arguments using (true or false) :

    11.1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.
    11.2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.
    11.3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)
    11.4) RATIONAL (logical) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.
    11.5) HISTORICAL (analogical): A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.
    11.6) SCIENTIFIC (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”
    11.7) ECONOMIC: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.
    11.8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.
    11.9) TRUTHFUL(COMPLETE): Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumental), Operational (Possible), Falsifiable (negatively tested).
    11.10) THE TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH – Not so much an argument but the most parsimonious verbal statement is possible.

—“Nanavati classifies lies into the following categories:”–

    gender specific
    to children

Dallas Denery: The Devil Wins: A History of Lying from the Garden of Eden to the Enlightenment
Thomas Carson: Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice
Jennifer Mather Saul: Lying, Misleading, and What is Said
Clancy Martin: The Philosophy of Deception
Herbert Fingarette: Self-Deception
Brooke Harrington: Deception: From Ancient Empires to Internet Dating
Edward Bernays: Propaganda
Jason Stanley: How Propaganda Works Hardcover
Jeremy Elkins: Truth and Democracy
David Livingstone: Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others
Daniel Nanavati: A Brief History Of Lies


How Do We Identify The Commons?

Information, Air, Water, Land, Physical Capital, Institutions, Norms, Traditions, Myths – people DEMONSTRATE that they treat these as commons: “that which may not be consumed”.

That is what constitutes property-en-toto: that which man has paid costs (of any kind) to acquire and inventory.